[ad_1]
Rebrands are hardly ever standard. When Twitter became X, it was a “dangerous joke.” When SunTrust and BB&T became Truist, the model evoked “toothpaste” and “linoleum.” When Philip Morris became Altria, “names [were] modified to guard the responsible.”
So eye-rolling was to be anticipated when social media big Fb introduced on October 28, 2021 that the corporate was altering its identify to Meta.
On the time, some critics viewed the rebrand as a tragic try to protect the corporate from dangerous press. Others pointed out that the superficial change wasn’t being accompanied by any significant restructuring. Plus, everybody added, the namesake digital world often called the metaverse wasn’t, as but, actually a factor.
However as time goes on, individuals usually neglect about disliking a rebrand. They could even neglect that the model ever had one other identify. Sure, we’re nonetheless in a time of red-hot disdain for X, however who right here even remembers that Accenture was as soon as Andersen Consulting? Who remembers that Bell Atlantic and GTE merged and begat Verizon?
So two years later, how is Meta faring? Let’s assess.
In a vacuum, is Meta a greater identify?
Arguably, sure.
One of many causes Mark Zuckerberg stated the corporate was rebranding was that in 17 years of existence, Fb had acquired a complete mess of apps, resembling Instagram and WhatsApp, and it was awkward for the father or mother firm to have the identical identify as a type of apps. Honest level. This was the identical strategic motive behind Google’s rebranding as Alphabet in 2015, a transfer that siloed the search enterprise from the likes of self-driving vehicles and sensible residence home equipment.
Linguistically, the identify Meta is shorter, extra elegant, and extra trendy. One may argue that Fb feels extra human—that there’s a futuristic sterility to Meta—or that Meta feels extra generically techie. However the phrases face and ebook are prosaic and particular, whereas Meta, crucially, is versatile sufficient to really feel pure on nearly any sort of {hardware} or software program the corporate may provide you with.
Did Meta execute this rebrand effectively?
The implementation has been easy sufficient.
The Meta model was introduced alongside a slick animated logo that informed the story of the identify change in about two seconds. The visible id, retaining Fb’s blue hues, was a simple adjustment. And Fb stays the identify of the corporate’s signature social platform, so there was no adaptation required there—a lot as individuals may simply preserve utilizing Google as they at all times had after Alphabet got here into existence.
Zuckerberg even spoke to the press to assist promote the concept—and to pooh-pooh the notion that the rebrand was designed to distance his empire from poisonous information.
If there was a misstep, it was that the corporate so explicitly tied the identify change to the idea that the metaverse—some cocktail of digital, augmented, and actual worlds—was the “subsequent digital frontier.” Zuckerberg expressed hopes that Meta could be seen not as a social media firm sooner or later however as “a metaverse firm.”
There’s a simple story to inform in regards to the identify Meta that extra vaguely ties into the long run potentialities of our digital lives and selves. However the firm’s communication put all of the chips on this factor that has famously not taken the world by storm.
The 12 months earlier than the rebrand, Meta created an arm of the corporate—Actuality Labs—that included its Oculus VR group and was explicitly devoted to bringing the metaverse to the lots. Over the following quarters, it not solely failed to take action however posted billions in losses. This disconnect stays the largest difficulty for the identify.
Did the change present a reputational increase?
Even when we take Zuck at his phrase—that this rebrand was not a transfer in popularity administration—we are able to all agree that Fb wanted a lift. The corporate’s numerous platforms had been related to all the things from election interference and misinformation to ethnic cleansing and self-harm. So has the identify change helped?
Polls would recommend it hasn’t moved public sentiment a lot: Folks didn’t love Meta earlier than it was Meta, they usually don’t find it irresistible now.
To wit: A “model popularity” survey collectively performed in 2023 by Axios and Harris Ballot put Meta close to the underside of the heap, rivaled by the likes of politically embattled TikTok and failed crypto trade FTX. It got here in #96 out of 100. However: it was principally in the identical spot on the poll when the corporate glided by a distinct identify, coming in #98 of 100 in 2021.
On a person stage, nonetheless, the higher identify appears to have dovetailed with a markedly higher time for Zuckerberg. Thanks in no small half to Elon Musk, who has sucked all of the tech-villian air out of the room, the goal on Zuck’s again has pale—and he has appeared extra grown up alongside this extra grown-up-sounding firm identify. There was even a time when individuals had been rooting for him lately. (Too dangerous that the cage match by no means occurred.)
General, the instances have been combined for Meta over the previous two years. Past exhausting instances at Actuality Labs, there have been different enterprise setbacks —layoffs, inventory worth drops, a slash in Zuckerberg’s private wealth, a decline in Fb customers. However for the previous a number of quarters, advert income has been booming; the latest numbers confirmed Meta’s internet revenue up 164% 12 months over 12 months.
Meaning, amongst different issues, that Meta has loads of runway.
So whereas critics can proceed to get their branding jabs in, there’s nonetheless time for the identify change to show prescient. There’s nonetheless time for the metaverse to change into a factor. If and when it does—and particularly if Meta is accountable—we’ll in all probability all neglect that this tech firm was ever named after some previous social media platform.
[ad_2]
Source link